Comments on: Who Does The HRC Represent Anyway?http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricFri, 31 Jul 2015 17:14:55 +0000hourly1By: Matthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80598
Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:42:15 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80598I’ve wasted enough brain cells and time venting about HRC in the past on BTB and other venues. Every since the Millennium March on Washington and the D’Amato endorsement, HRC has been dead to me. They are a joke and everyone knows they are a joke except for the poor fools who think that buying their “=” logo wear helps the cause for LGBT rights.

The rich folk will continue to attend the black-tie affairs because to them, “effectiveness” is synonymous with seeing their names in the programs and getting their pictures taken with celebs and politicians. That’s all they care about.

Even before that $500M estimate, I have been stunned at their wasteful ways. I can answer where a good chunk of it went (besides salaries)–take a look at their shiny HQ at 1640 Rhode Island Avenue. That place was a money pit from the start (take it from a long-time B;nai B’rith member–that was our former HQ) and I am guessing that it’s costing them serious coin just to keep it open.

Earlier posts have put it well. They are a PERFECT fit for Obama–stick a finger in the (air) and see which way the wind is blowing before doing squat.

Damn, I hope that Reid loses in NV but the Dems can hold on to at least the Senate. Losses like that lead to necessary re-assessments.

– I don’t think HRC has ever broken $50 million for an annual budget. Last reported budget was for $37 million and the year before that was $41.4 million. So I think the 10 year estimate of $500 million above is off by $100-150 million. Even so, it is an enormous amount of money. HRC is not only the largest national org; it beats everyone else by a 10:1 margin, except for Lambda and NGLTF, which it beats by a 2:1 and 4:1 margin respectively.

– 90% of that money was wasted. Despite a huge budget and a large staff, HRC has accomplished virtually nothing on the federal level.

-There is nothing wrong with having a lobbying strategy, but these people don’t really do that. If they did, they would hire former staffers of senior Senators and House committee chairman. Under Bush, they would get a well-liked moderate GOP lobbyist to run the show; under Obama, they would hire a connected Democrat. Instead, they hire a former NARAL guy with little clout at a time when the GOP controlled the capital, and they make no changes after the 2006 and 2008 elections. They plod along ineffectually without any regard for the environment in which they work.

-It is true that they dole out some money locally. Whenever I see that happen, I think that it is good that at least some resources are deployed where they should be. But it is a small amount, and it pales in comparison to the funds that are soaked up and used for things like the mortgage on HRC’s building or Solomonese’s 300K salary and a host of meaningless initiatives.

Here’s a good example: HRC shelled out a few hundred grand to help last year’s fight in Maine. That is where the money was needed. But in contrast to NOM, which sent Yes on 1 huge donations throughout the campaign and ultimately supplied Yes on 1 with over 2/3 of its funds, HRC’s contributions accounted for less than 10% of No on 1’s funds. Similar story in WA. Now some HRC money is better than none, but what would be even better is if we didn’t have this black hole sucking up $37 million every year to begin with.

That’s your call. But I don’t think we do ourselves any favors by supporting the Republicans without a game changing event. Some Log Cabiners belong to HRC as well.

Here’s the dilemma. The GOP is awful, but the Dems ignoring our concerns is catastrophic. And HRC has been ineffective at best, incompetent at worst.

I think we need to change the dynamic. Here’s how. We should figure out a way to third party the Dems where they deserve it. For example, run a candidate for President as a 3rd party. It would not be that expensive as we would only get on the ballot in swing states. Let Obama and co. figure out how to convince Gay voters to vote for him or he can continue to ignore us and watch 3-4% of his vote go somewhere else. And if the GOP wins as a result. So be it. Make him fight for our votes. It would also be an end run around HRC who would not be able to stop or preempt it. They would be seen as not in control of the Gay community.

That’s my idea. I’m not voting for the Republicans. They are worse. But I’m willing to vote for someone who does fight for my values and if a republican wins as a result, I’m good with that.

The Democrats will only fight for us when they think that we actually will let the GOP win if they ignore us.

]]>By: Mikehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80593
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:04:06 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80593Next time they call for money, or rather next time the inept call center they use rings me (They don’t even bother changing the caller ID – the number came up as The Hertitage Foundation. Ha!) I’ll ask if they can redirect me to The Log Cabin Republicans.
]]>By: Amicushttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80589
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:16:39 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80589The gay community’s strength has always been direct action, not ‘political organization’.

So, if you had to re-craft an organizational structure to fit our strengths, it would be one that empowers individuals to get involved. That means the organization serves the volunteers, not the other way around.

You set out some really ambitious goals. For example:

1. We intend to move public opinion by +5 in Ohio, over the next three years. Benchmark: here are the current numbers, here is the projection, based on demographics, and we’re targeting +5 on that.

2. We intend to show that we can be competitive in rural areas, where Republicans poll +15 or better. We have a program tailored that we hope can shape the discussion, even in areas the Democrats often do not contest well. We have carefully chosen districts in VA, WV, and IN in which we believe a combination of media and direct action can make a difference in the perception of everyday gays and lesbians.

Then, sorta like the netroots, you empower people to get involved. Rather than say, “give us money, we’ll make ads for you”. You say, here are five ads. We need $100K, $200K, and $1M to run these. Pick the ones you like and send us $5+. This money will be used only for this purpose, not champagne. Also, we need people who are willing to ‘press the flesh’. We have various print advertising to do. Here are three themes. Post/share your ideas with everyone on the various themes. The list can go on. High profile people, town halls when you think you can get participation, etc.

And you don’t shy away from showing failure or “lessons learned”.

In other words, you complement the greasing of Washington with direct action, long-term/strategic, issue advocacy.

]]>By: Tom in Lazybrookhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80587
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:07:00 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80587Well their operating budget is approx 40+ million a year, plus they have their tax deductible foundation.

My estimate is about half a billion dollars over the last 10 years. I’d say its’ ballpark.

]]>By: Tonehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80578
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:08:59 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80578HRC has gone through half a billion? Goodness knows I have no issue with any LBGT advocacy group being well-funded, but it sounds like HRC has succumbed to a degree of bureaucratic bloat. They probably convene and sponsor a lot of conferences to bring together a diversity of ideas, but then never get past the idea stage. And they’re probably beholden to some of the donors of that money. The same thing has happened to the Canadian AIDS Society.
]]>By: Amicushttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80574
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:21:10 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80574Those are a lot of questions, but it is lunch break, so I’ll put in my 2-cents:

All your questions are far more interesting to me than the standard-issue discourse on the HRC.

I don’t know how the $110 was spent. It’s not surprising to me to see them hire their own people, because there is a question of accountability. However, I do believe that they pass money along, sometimes, giving up a fair amount of control. I can’t think of a project off hand, though.

I don’t know the origins of One Iowa, sadly. However, like the FBI, any national organization has the problem of not stepping on toes, if they try to hone in on someone’s “turf” (like SLDN’s?).

I don’t know where the TV ads are. I don’t even know if TV ads are needed/effective and by how much. I wondered aloud whether we ought to dis-intermediate the HRC and get bands of people together to put buy cheap billboard space in key, swing states. I do know that, if you push the electorate even +5 points, Congresscritters will respond, Texas-sized gerrymandering notwithstanding.

We do know that Frank Schubert handed EqualityCalifornia a TKO, in terms of running a strategic ad campaign (read Schubert’s own published account of it in the Prop8 trial exhibits). We also see only some evidence of collective learning but not yet of coordination/cooperation of the level that would leverage scarce resources across state borders.

The troops should all worry more about results and not credit. That will keep the leaders in line. I know, I’m a dreamer, because organizations have to showoff to fund raise and to motivate the kinds of people who go into not-for-profit (at least at he low-end of the pay scale, a-hem). But, seriously, “Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration Awards” show be the only “awards ceremony” that anyone wants to go to.

As for ‘good steward’, I have to say “no”, with important qualification. First, they are beholden to their large donors. So, if someone wants to give a lot of money for something, that’s where its going, I *suspect*. It’s not going into the general pot and get prioritized according to the Grand Master Plan.

Second, like any large organization, they probably can’t make hard decisions (I have NO inside info, this is just a statement in general). So, they end up allocating a little bit to everything, not taking big risks.

Last, for whatever reasons, they probably do things that are easy and shun things that are hard. Unions strike. That’s their stick. What do lobbyists do? Well, you know Washington, you tell me. Given that gays as a group do not have political power and their influence lies in the ability to persuade, how best should a gay lobby group use whatever ‘sticks’ it has?

]]>By: Tom in Lazybrookhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80569
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:17:55 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80569Amicus. So they spent 110k in Iowa. How was that 110k spent? To hire HRC insiders as ‘consultants’?

But even if that was a ‘good faith’ investment, where are the TV ads defending our community? Where is the action to hold Dems accountable for their inaction or incomepetence? And was HRC’s investment too little or too late?

Was One Iowa created by HRC? HRC has had a habit of waiting on the sidelines until a group or idea gains traction, then trying to take credit for it.

Do you think that HRC has been a good steward for its 500 million bucks?

]]>By: Amicushttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/10/27117/comment-page-1#comment-80568
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:25:03 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27117#comment-80568As for Obama, it would be a strange thing even for a two-face politician to use the SOTU, if there were a hidden intention to ‘do nothing’. Only Nixon could do such a thing, in modern memory.

Now, things could right themselves quickly in the lame duck, so that still needs our immediate focus.

Nevertheless, it’s fairly plain that the politics of this has gotten pretty screwed up by them. The question is why and how.

At a minimum, it does look like they underestimated the resistance; deferred too much to the military, in hopes of ‘leading change the right way’, a laudable goal; failed to reckon their political timeline adequately; and did a abysmal job of getting advance, decision-quality input from the gay community and handling communications.